|DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY|
Any member can post here proposals concerning WDDM (its function, mission, goals, organization).
This is a very good plan developed by Georges Metanomski. I thank you Georges, now I add a few suggestions. Please everyone comment and share your ideas. We need this form of infrastructure for people together making decisions for their community, state, nation, world.
Let us consider the problem of transition towards
DD in a structured form.
Eventual arguments for Revolution could be
inserted here as paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.
I personally do not see any.
Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions
and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely
exterminate billions and ruin the planet.
1.2.2.DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES.
None of known Revolutions achieved its declared
objectives and most achieved their contrary.
As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired
way. In very broad strokes it may take one of
-Legislation determines action,
-Action determines legislation.
2.1.LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION.
This means to postpone all practical DD
procedures until respective legislation is in
place. The only possible action seems to consist
in petitions imploring such legislation.
However, Particracy will just throw such
implorations into the dust bin, as they would
on the one hand imply restriction of its power
and, on the other hand, carry no weight.
The only exception may be implementation of some
form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum). Indeed,
in crisis situations requiring extremely unpopular
measures Particracy may find it comfortable to
wash its hands and to discharge the politically
disastrous responsibility on the shoulders of
manipulated and conditioned people.
Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by
definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily
be conditioned by media and demagogy. DD starts
with a continuous "3F" Forum having all 3 functions
namely Initiative, Debate and Decision, with
Debate determining current consensus and
Decision occurring when consensus reaches a
value predetermined by Forum's rules.
Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be
in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
of Particracy against the true DD.
2.2.ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.
As consequence of all above it seems the only
way left. Which form may it take? I can see only
one, the 2.2.1.Shadow Parliament presented below.
Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying
conditions of 126.96.36.199. below and having achieved
consensus with respect to some decision.
We will then be in position of putting enough
pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our
request without humiliating and inefficient
Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short
look at 188.8.131.52. Conditions we shall realize that
it is far from plain sailing.
In order to be able to put any pressure, the
Group must count enough members. 1% of the voting
population seems to be a minimum, but of course
it is just a guess. Only practice will tell.
(same as I&BR)
Consensus of a Group of that size may only be
achieved with help of an adequate "3F" E-Platform.
Short experience with my CN shows that while
such Platform is feasible, adequate and efficient,
its refining and, above all, the apprenticeship
of its use will require at least a generation.
The main difficulty seems to reside not so much
in Platform's complexity, but in mental rigidity
engendered by our educational system making
people unable to understand, let alone to apply
concepts sorting of beaten paths.
Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather
self educated people were able to make worth while
contributions to CN.
(could use paper ballot at community for finale referendum.)
It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e.
personal sacrifices involved by the global
improvement. This short phrase implies a
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of
present egoism with something similar to the
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim.
BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist
of DD should start by a stage in a Kibbutz, as
it's the only truly DD social group in the
history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was
in reality an Oligarchy eliminating from power
the majority: metecs and slaves.)
If Logistics requires at least a generation,
Sincerity will come still later, if ever,
It's necessary condition is the New Manner of
Thinking discussed below.
The site dedicated by G. Evans in EVANS ACADEMY
to "Metanomski Papers":
has as motto Einstein's assertion:
"A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."
A clear call for Enlightenment understood as people's
emergence from obscurantism imposed dogmatically by
established governance, media, education and religions.
The First Enlightenment originated in the scientific
revolution of Descartes, Galileo and Newton, and from
the involved new Reason, wherefrom the alias "Age of
Reason". This new Reason explicated in ontological
and epistemological terms by Kant and in socio-political
terms by the Encyclopedists spread the Enlightenment
over the people and led to the French Revolution from
which emerged the Particratic Oligarchy called
One may object that we contradict here the denial of
Revolutions (1.REVOLUTION). However, the French
Revolution betrayed in fact its Enlightenment seeds
and instead of emancipating people, changed the form of
their oppression, first in the Terror, than in the
Empires and finally in the Particracy ruling till
our own days.
Still, Particracy is less bad than the autocracy of
the Ancien Regime and, above all, the best, if not
the only step towards DD. So, even betrayed by the
Revolution, the First Enlightenment did not get
(note, they were always basing decisions on past practices dogmatically – taught academically.)
Our epoch appears by analogy as origin of the "Second
Enlightenment". Einstein's new edifice of science
reposes on an entirely refounded Reason supplanting
antecedent Absolute Logic with Relativistic Dialectic.
Ontological, epistemological and socio-political
explication of this Reason are still lacking, so that
the Second Enlightenment stays in the bud, in a form
that cannot be popularized and serve to free people
from oppression of the established obscurantism.
And we need it more than did the French people
oppressed by the Ancien Regime. They were confined
in slave labor and misery which was bad enough, but
our established obscurantism goes deeper and calls
into question the very survival of humanity.
That's why we endeavor to explicate Relativistic
Dialectic in ontological and epistemological terms
as a modest contribution to the Second Enlightenment
and to its socio-political outcome, the Direct
Ontological foundations of RD may be seen in
(doing the same wrong thing over and over is nut’s)
(we must help people see they are dependent on their community for security, roads, water, sewer all kinds of things. It is in each person’s best interest to do their part to keep their community healthy. Each must do their part to keep their community government secure and healthy.)
Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
|Shadow Parliament||1010||BrEggum||07/19/2007 06:44PM|